If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Afrikaners Will Perish Without Legal Autonomy

We publish the following opinion-piece by South African anthropologist Cor Ehlers, a multi-talented Free State cattle-farmer who chairs the OASE organisation: its goal: to legally re-establish – through the international community – an independent Afrikaner State on 6,5% of the total land-surface of South Africa – the territory where the Boers were settled permanently as independent republicans ever since the Great Trek. We also run advertisements on our pages encouraging people to sign up for the Volksraadverkiesingskommittee – which is electing a negotiation-commission to start negotiating with the ANC-regime about the establishment of an independent republic inside South Africa. Ehlers’ plan is very different from the VVK plan – yet they both have the same ideals. We hope that the two groups will be able to come to an agreement so that these efforts can be combined. We will continue to present all these various viewpoints from Boer- and Afrikaner-Republicans who all strive for a small autonomous homeland: a place where their people can be safe from increasingly violent genocidal hatespeech and the widespread campaign of aggression now being experienced by Afrikaners under ANC-rule. We chose no sides: we also will always continue to support the attempts to charge the ruling African National Congress leaders in the International Criminal Court in The Hague for genocide: two organisations, the Pro-Afrikaans-Action Group and the Verkenners, lodged formal charges in The Hague in April and May 2011 in this regard.

Mr Ehlers is a seventh generation Afrikaner of German and Dutch descent both on his father’s and mother’s side. Paternal great grandfather Christiaan Ehlers fought in the Boers’ freedom wars in 1881 and1899-1902 against the invading colonial forces of Great Britain. Maternal great grandfather Ben Vorster, was a prisoner of war in Ceylon in 1902 and his wife was in a British concentration camp survivor: losing two children due to the horrendous conditions in those British death-camps 1901-1902. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Anthropology and Indigenous Law from the University of Pretoria. He ran a private security firm for 25 years, moving to the countryside to develop a guest farm in 2007 – www.poplargrove.co.za . Dutch-born Wife Dineke arrived as a young immigrant in SA with her parents and siblings in 1974. She holds a master’s degree in Afrikaans and Dutch from the University of South Africa; and is a lecturer there. The couple have one daughter, Marieke, who graduated in International Law (LLB)at the University of The Hague. Marieke was born and raised as an Afrikaner in South Africa, but decided to pursue her tertiary studies in The Netherlands, particularly after employment opportunities for whites (especially Afrikaners) were blocked by the ANC government’s anti-white black-economic-empowerment laws. Marieke continues her studies in LLM (International Law) from September at the University of Kent in the UK.

Self-determination for Afrikaners and Boers is essential if they are to survive physically on the African continent:

Mr Ehlers writes:

“Due to my patriotic feelings for my own people and due to Marieke’s studies in International Law in The Hague, I have come to the conclusion that the only way in which Afrikaners will ever survive both culturally and physically in Africa will be through external self-determination and territorial sovereignty.

The concept of self-determination has always been seen as belonging to ‘a far-right minority’ amongst Afrikaners and the media — and ANC propaganda has always succeeded in labelling any gesture in this direction as being ‘extreme rightwing’. The vast majority of Afrikaners, both in South Africa and abroad, are however yearning for a solution and with the correct approach we believe territorial sovereignty for Afrikaners can be achieved in the medium to long term. We have established an independent organisation, OASE (Onafhanklike Afrikaner-selfbeskikkingsekspedisie or: Independent Afrikaner self-determination expedition) which is not linked in any direct or indirect way to any political and/or cultural organisation. We have involved a number of academics and persons across a broad spectrum of Afrikaner society and this has resulted in some excellent research. We believe our endeavours will ultimately pay off since we carry no ‘right- or leftwing political baggage’.

We base our claims on the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Section 1.1 (and other relevant declarations and resolutions) which clearly states:

•‘All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’

There are no specific criteria in International Law defining the process which ought to be followed to obtain external self-determination – however, an international law expert – David Raic - conducted an in-depth study of processes pertaining to external self-determination. His findings, together with the Montevideo Convention (1933) criteria for statehood have formed the legal basis of our claims thus far. The Montevideo Convention’s requirements for statehood are:

1. A clearly defined territory.

2. A permanent population of the group within the defined territory wishing to succeed from the unitary state.

3. An effective government.

4. The ability to enter into agreements with other sovereign states.

* A fifth requirement has subsequently developed in International Law, i.e. the new state should underwrite and promote basic human rights.

In the past until June 2010, this uti possidetis iuris principle was a serious obstacle for Afrikaners who desired external self-determination, since secession could only take place if former colonial borders remained intact — which would have meant that Afrikaners would have ended up as yet another minority in one or both of the former Boer Republics (Freestate and Transvaal) which were colonized in 1902 after a vicious scorched-earth war by colonial invader Great Britain. However this changed after the outcome of the Kosovo case in the ICJ in the Hague in June 2010 – and also, due to tremendous pressure from legal advisers since the crumbling of East European states, the uti possidetis rule has become less important.

•This means Afrikaners can now claim territory where they form the majority within a specific region by drawing borders in a way which will exclude millions of blacks – many of whom are migrants from borders north of present-day South Africa. The territory which OASE has identified, based on anthropoligical, archaeological, historical and economic research formed integral parts of the former Boer Republics and is commonly known as the Highveld region of South Africa, linked with a corridor to the Northern Natal coast to include the harbour of Richards Bay and the World Heritage coastal enclave of St Lucia Bay.

Afrikaners will have to make certain harsh sacrifices in the process in order to minimise economic and administrative disruption in the process of seceeding from the unitary state. In accordance with International Law the process of secession must take place in a peaceful manner through negotiations. We doubt whether the ANC and its two political partners (SA Communist Party and Cosatu Trade Union Federation) will accept Afrikaners’ claims for territorial sovereignty. It is therefore of the utmost importance that we appoint a team of International Law experts consisting of lawyers both from South Africa and abroad, since we might ultimately have to go the same route as Kosovo did. Should negotiations with the ANC fail, we shall have no alternative but to declare unilateral independence and this may result in the ANC referring the case to the UN who will in turn refer it to the ICJ – as Serbia did in the case of Kosovo. Afrikaners will have to make sure that they have a watertight case if the process ends up in The Hague.

International support

The only way through wich a people can obtain external self-determination which will successfuly result in territorial sovereignty, is if such a new state is recognised by the international community.

•Afrikaners’ endeavours will therefore have to run in tandem with diplomatic processes so that international partners can recognise the new state’s sovereignty, whether it is obtained through peaceful negotiations or through an Unilateral Declaration of Independence.

Recognition by the UN is not a legal requirement since sovereignty is gained even if only one other sovereign state recognizes the new state. However, for purposes of economic and physical survival Afrikaners would obviously have to try and get as many international supporters as possible.

During apartheid the state of Israel was always a strong international partner of Afrikaners and we believe this may well be the case again should Afrikaners gain sovereignty. An Afrikaner agricultural union (TLU SA) has also managed to build excellent relations with Georgia and we have hope that that country will recognise eventual Afrikaner sovereignty.

Moreover, Afrikaners have always maintained strong cultural ties with the Flemish in Belgium which could result in that country also recognising our new state.

The winds of change currently blowing over Western Europe where support for nationalism is growing daily, could result in countries such as The Netherlands and Germany also ultimately recognising Afrikaner sovereignty. Ultimate recognition would obviously come if the USA recognizes our sovereignty and this will probably only happen under Republican rule.

ANC-regime is alienating its Western partners:

The ANC government is slowly alienating its western partners by embracing China, as well as rogue states such as North Korea and Libya and Zimbabwe. We believe the strategic location of a western ally (especially with harbour facilities) in Southern Africa would certainly raise the West’s consideration for recognition of an independent Afrikaner state.

International Law clearly prohibits violence as a method to obtain external self-determination, unless the unitary state becomes the aggressor and the minority wishing to secede acts in self-defence – another reason why our endeavours will not result in any success without international support.

Where else could Afrikaners –- who now face physical annihilation — survive culturally and physically?

Afrikaners have only one ‘heimat’ and that is South Africa; should the international community not recognise Afrikaners’ right to external self-determination, then they should tell us where else we can survive culturally and physically and issue us with the necessary passports so that we can emigrate to such a country on a mass scale.

OASE will be embarking on a marketing and fundraising campaign within the next few months in order to raise support for external self-determination under the majority of Afrikaners who already reside in the defined territory, but also under those who fall outside the said territory including the more than half a million Afrikaners who have already settled abroad due to the ever-increasing crime rate since 1994 and because they are being deliberately barred from public life, including the job market, by the ANC-regime’s anti-white black-economic empowerment laws. There are currently only two other options for Afrikaner self-determination on the table, namely:

Orania in the Northern Cape desert: will never be self-sustainable for Afrikaner self-determination:

* Orania is a small Afrikaner settlement in a semi-desert area of the Northern Cape but in our view will never become an economically sustainable area for Afrikaner self-determination. In spite of efforts to establish an Afrikaner homeland in Orania over the past two decades, only 900 Afrikaners have moved there since 1990 whilst more than half a million have already left the country since 1994.

The Afrikaners will claim 6,5% of the total land surface – as a minority group they are 6% of the total population:

The option which OASE will be offering Afrikaners comprises approximately 6,5% of the country’s total land surface; Afrikaners as a minority group constitute 6% of the total population of South Africa.

•Afrikaners have lived in that specific territory continuously since the Great Trek in 1836

•The area which we have identified was tamed by Afrikaners who settled there in large numbers since the Great Trek in 1836 and which will include the Afrikaner suburbs of the two predominantly Afrikaner cities of Bloemfontein and Pretoria as well as several other Afrikaner towns of cultural and historical value to Afrikaners. The area is economically sustainable and could be developed further into a wealthy independent state where all Afrikaners (approximately 3 million) can ultimately survive, should this ever become necessary.

* Secondly, a group of Afrikaners (the Volksraad Verkiesingskommissie or VVK) have recently embarked on a campaign to have an Afrikaner Council (Volksraad) elected with the purpose of negotiating with the ruling African National Congress for self-determination; we fear that this could damage Afrikaners’ attempts to gain independence within the parammeters of International Law and due to non-recognition of the international community, – especially as a result of the VVK’s approach on basic human rights where homosexuals are excluded from any participation in the electoral processes.

•The VVK also believes that Afrikaners will ultimately succeed in establishing an Afrikaner state based on racial discrimination. This movement has no specific territorial area in mind moreover: which is the most basic shortcoming of their approach, since the bottom line of negotiations with the ANC as per international law will have to be about territory and nothing else.

•The VVK does however lean towards the Orania area in the semi-desert of the Northern Cape where there is absolutely no infrastructure and where so called ‘Coloured people’– who are direct descendants of the first nation of South Africa, the Khoisan (they are also referred to rather disparagingly as ‘Hottentot and Bushmen’) are living scattered throughout the region but are in the majority – these peoples, in particular the Griquas, as the first nations of Southern Africa; and they will certainly have a much stronger claim on the Northern Cape territory than white Afrikaners will ever have in terms of international law – and more so in terms of the UN’s Declaration regarding Indigenous Peoples. Moreover, the present northern Cape where Orania is located,was annexed from the independent Boer Republic of the Free State by the British Cape-colonial government when diamonds were discovered in Kimberley.

Afrikaners/Boers have also never enjoyed sovereignty in the so called Cape Colony or any part thereof prior to British colonization.

Although the word "Commando" was wrongly used to describe all Boer soldiers, a commando was a unit formed from a particular district. None of the units was organized in regular companies, battalions or squadrons. The Boer commandos were individualists who were difficult to control, resented formal discipline or orders, and earned a British jibe that"every Boer was his own general".

We really need to support this. Sovereignty for Afrikaners will make the difference in whether or not you survive as a people. I'm with you all the way on this. No one should have to take the abuses that your people do and not have the opportunity to protect themselves.

Is there any support I can give to this organization? Will they take donations?

I am getting slightly optimistic about Oase and the Praag's plans for a Volkstaat. I still remain slightly skeptical of Roodt and his entourage as they are clearly not opposed to having the Jews as allies, as we have seen on another thread here on Skadi : http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.p...ighlight=roodt

Still, I feel we shouldn't look a gift-horse in the mouth and choose the lesser of two evils. But still, we should approach all of this very carefully and not give ourselves over to another FW. That will do us more harm than good.

To summarise the linked-to thread in English: not only does Roodt advocate for having them as allies, he also appears to be vying for their integral inclusion in our nationalist movement, even to the point of entertaining ideas of religious-cultural exchange between Jews and Afrikaners. Roodt certainly is a great benefit to our movement, one of our best author-activists, but he too closely espouses Geert Wilders-type politics for us not to be cautious and vigilantly critical.

Originally Posted by Sterkspies

Still, I feel we shouldn't look a gift-horse in the mouth and choose the lesser of two evils. [...]

Another way to look at it would be to keep in mind the ever-present need for a revolution within a revolution. For a viable, conscionable folk identity we'll be pushing for spiritual and ideological renewal within the wider current of folk nationalism in any case, whether it's amidst pro-Zionism from Roodt or ultraconservatism from the next guy. We can do our thing while still supporting projects individuals like Roodt are closely associated with, even leads.

Another way to look at it would be to keep in mind the ever-present need for a revolution within a revolution. For a viable, conscionable folk identity we'll be pushing for spiritual and ideological renewal within the wider current of folk nationalism in any case, whether it's amidst pro-Zionism from Roodt or ultraconservatism from the next guy. We can do our thing while still supporting projects individuals like Roodt are closely associated with, even leads.

My point exactly. It is gonna be a long time before we can escape Zionism and one nation alone cannot do it, it will be a world-wide movement. But at least we with Roodt etc. we might be as good/bad off as any other "first-world" country and not be condemned to a "third world hell". Lesser of 2 evils as I say. Dan is at least an intelligent guy. I'd take him over Malema any day.

We really need to support this. Sovereignty for Afrikaners will make the difference in whether or not you survive as a people. I'm with you all the way on this. No one should have to take the abuses that your people do and not have the opportunity to protect themselves.

In principle yes.

Originally Posted by Gray

Is there any support I can give to this organization? Will they take donations?

I'd have my reservations about the way this three-man-organisation lashes out against other organisations basically fighting for the same goal. I can elaborate on this, if you want.

Anyway, the links need updating.

Originally Posted by Sterkspies

I am getting slightly optimistic about Oase and the Praag's plans for a Volkstaat. I still remain slightly skeptical of Roodt and his entourage as they are clearly not opposed to having the Jews as allies, as we have seen on another thread here on Skadi....

OASE/Ehlers is going to be even more enthusiastic about this. I can get you the quotes, if you want.

"And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia

Why not help Orania, then?

There is no way I will move to this new settlement. Who the hell is this Marike, thinking she could organise for me? I have a fantastic little place in the Cape, near Muizenberg. My friends there speak Afrikaans. It is near my preferred hospital. I would rather die there than move to some Afrikaner homeland.

The way I know all these Afrikaner organisations, my Muslim friends will not be welcome.

I do not trust Roodt. He is in favour of the Jews / Israel. Lavon and USS Liberty tells the story why they should not be trusted at all. I also saw on Stormfront how he is collecting money for his organization - handsomely! All under the assumption that he is helping all Afrikaners - which is not true.

Well, I do not come from a too shabby family either. I can prove that my great-great grandfather was J.J. Venter, who was acting president of the Free State Republic. Many of us hold doctorates, masters, etc, and have travelled the world.

If all the organisations do not work together, the idea of a homeland will not work. (How many little homelands do we need?) Even then, it is a futile exercise. Europe is our motherland, and, if the VOC acted as did Aramco, the recruits and their descendants would have been called back to Europe. Which is the proper thing to do. Many Aramcans were born in the Middle East, but they grow up knowing that they have to return to the motherland, eventually.

There is nothing to say that a future government cannot overpower this new settlement. If I have to stay in South Africa, it will not be there. I will not invest there; I will not even visit - just like, as I understand, Roodt does not visit Orania.

Take note that wee need to debate other organisations in a separate thread. Just briefly something on opposition to a Volkstaat, which is quite usually grounded in stupidity.
- A Volkstaat is about selfdetermination within ones own territory; it's not about where or how big such a territory is going to be.
- A Volkstaat is about where you have political representation, and not about where you have to move.
- Afrikaners living and working outside the territory will still have benefits from it.
- There will be trade with other nations and foreigners may visit a Volkstaat. I am pretty sure many will prefer trading with the Volkstaat over present day Asania.
- One misconception is that "A Volkstaat will mean that we've to stay in the desert", it mainly stems from the portrayal of Orania as "the Volkstaat". It's actually not a bad place at all, but note that this is only one small faction of Volkstaters that supported this option.

People should realise that opposing a Volkstaat de facto means that they are supporting the New South Africa.
On Roodt and Praag. I won't take for granted, what I read on Stormfront about them. The SA section on SF used to be good many years ago, but has degenerated to a cesspool of hill billies and rather dodgy characters.

I think there are some threads dedicated to a Volkstaat in general, Praag and other subjects already.

OK, I'll elaborate a bit on the issue of what one needs to know about OASE . I am using my general knowledge, what I found on the internet both on OASE's side and also on forums. Unfortunately I will not alwas be able to give credit to the originators of some of the ideas and information I'll write down here.
Let me first say a few positive things. It's good when some new people are joining the cause for Afrikaner independence and are willing to do some work in this regard. This seems to be the case with OASE and a few other newbies on the field.
I'd agree with Ehlers/OASE on a few things and that is that Afrikaners should rule themselves and have their own territory, which exclusively belongs to them. There is also a need to research this and to develop a route plan for this. This will have to involve qualified people. So far there is consensus.

There are however a couple of things that are of some concern regarding OASE and the way the organisation and its key players act.
OASE is a pretty new organisation and they were unknown to me until a couple of weeks ago. It seems they may have about 100 supporters and perhaps another couple of hundred sympathisers, hardly a broadbased movement. Basically they want to identify an area for a Volkstaat and then try to negotiate with the SA government and United Nations about it. It is basically an administrative-juristical exercise for them. It should be noted that they are, contrary to what they seem to claim, by far not the first one that came up with the idea. Robert van Tonder had the idea of a "Boerestaat" decades ago and the Oranjewerkers have done research and practical work on this during the 80s. I will come back to this later and point more details out on this. There are a number of problems with this organisations.

- Attacks on other patriots
The first problematic thing that I noticed in connection with OASE was their attacks on other patriotic organisations, especially the VVK, which works to establish an Afrikaner voters register. These attacks were commonly of a personal nature and combined with some criticism, which was partially justified partially not. They published a whole piece on this and it's basically an attempt to score a view points by knocking down the VVK. Clearly there is a personal agenda for them here. The VVK election would establish a body that can represent Afrikaners, something OASE would like to do themselves. And something, which they only came up with after the VVK was up and running for quite a while.
For a while it seemed that OASE made some progress in terms of cooperating with PRAAG. They later published an article where they distanced themselves from PRAAG and blaming them at the same time for the lack of progress in terms fo cooperation.
The attacks also include gross misrepresentations of the other organisations points fo few (see above). The VVK doesn't make any remarks about sexual orientation and a right to vote. Candidates may have their own point of view on this, just like political parties do. But I think Ehlers is simply sucking this out of his thumb.

- incapacity of cooperation
The permanent attacks on other groups and their lack of identifying a suitable role for themselves leads to an incapacity of cooperation with those other groups. To me it appears that one of the biggest problems is to give credit to the other organisations efforts and to accept anything else, but their own terms for cooperating. The had a funny way of saying it:"OASE streef na onvoorwaardelike eenheid in Afrikanergeledere onder ‘n onafhanklike OASE-sambreel" (transl.: Oase strives for unconditional unity in Afrikaner circles und an independent OASE umbrella). Does that make sense?
What that basically means is that the requirement by OASE for cooperating would be that the other organisation has to accept the exact route OASE has to follow and that the OASE team will take over the role of negotiator and decision makers on everything concerning selfdetermination. That's of course something no other organisation will accept especially coming from greenhorns like OASE, even if they insist on their academic qualifications and titles, which is a manifestation of another problem.

- academic arrogance
To defend their claim to fame for representing Afrikaners OASE will point to the academic qualifications some key members have and allege that other organisations aren't qualified for the task of negotiating a Volkstaat.

- political correctness
OASE insists frequently on Afrikaners having to eat political correct chalk saying that they are not allowed to discrminate based on race and that according to Ehlers "Afrikaners lost their freedom, because they discriminated based on race"
Also note that they spin a fairy tale about a friendship or alliance between Afrikaners and Jews prior to 1994. This is complete fiction as this relationship was Israel selling weapons and technology to South Africa, while SA sold Israel Uranium. Do I need to say who got the shorter straw in those dealings?
In that light one should also see their attack on "Holocaust deniers" in an article on their site; with flawed arguments even orthodox Holocaustians would refrain from using.

- blameshifting
The friction between them and other organisations is frequently blamed on the other organisations painting them as uneducated, having ulterior motives and being "racist" or "homophobic". They do this, while it's clearly them that started and continued attacking the other organisations. I say clearly, because the attacks can be read on the OASE web sites and one doesn't find such attacks on the other orgs web sites.

- false claim on originalityIn a statement OASE says "OASE is die eerste onafhanklike organisasie wat uit eie krag en met eie middelle die haalbaarheid van eksterne selfbeskikking vir Afrikaners nagevors het,..." (translation: OASE is the first independent organisation that from their own with their own means researched the the feasibility of external Afrikaner self determination,...). Here they are either outright lying or ignorant about the work that has been done by the Oranjewerkers, AVSTIG, SABRA and many other organisations. If they really had done research they should have been aware of publications like "Afrikanerland 'n gebiedsaanduiding" By P.F. Bruwer and team or "Selfbeskikking en Sessessie" by AWG Raath to name just a few.

- plagiarismThe Volkstaat map they are using is almost the same then the one that Bruwer and his team did publish in "Afrikanerland 'n gebiedsaanduiding". One gets the impression that they've copied their map and then added a few minor changes to them.

- personality issuesThe arrogance, audacity and blameshifting tells me that there is a serious personality issue at work. Consider that the leadership does have above average education. One would actually assume that they can handle conflict in a more diplomatic way.

- family businessOASE seems to consist mainly of Cor Ehlers and his daughter. The rest seems to be a couple of young people that only recently came to the insight that selfdetermination in ones own territory (a Volkstaat) is what Afrikaners should go for. It seems that the later are the ones that spam the comment sections of rightwing and media outlets with advertisments for OASE, if they are not picking a fight with other patriots.

- no broadbased supportUntil recently Ehlers himself was an almost unknown figure. The same applies to the rest of them. I don't think they have more then a couple of hundred supporters of whom many may have other committments.

- flawed strategyEhlers seems to think that all they need to do is to get some supporters on board and then lobby a Volkstaat in the Hague for which his daughter Marieke will work out the documents. And then Afrikaners would simply fall into this with their support. That's rather naive to use an euphemism.
Before one does do anything formally political one needs to establish broad based (Afrikaner) support for an idea. That you achieve by first attracting intellectuals that develop, formulate and agitate a set of ideas. Only if the ideas have permeated the community thoroughly, you'll be able to direct political action into the desired direction. It should be noted that this process has already started a while ago and that one built on the dominance of ideas previously as well as the present day experiences with the New South Africa. I guess the guilt tripping by media and churches is one thing that needs to be broken. The attacks on other patriots are also a clear indication of a flawed strategy. One doesn't do that, even if there is valid critique. The correct approach would be living and let live or to cooperate on a complementary. Me thinks that OASE was first conceptualized as another "think tank", but that they adopted becoming a representative body and lastely there is some indication that they'd like to engage in charitable work as well. The "think tank" approach may have been a good option, after the use of previous institutions had been canceled out. Such a think tank would then just support other organisation that work in other fields (and not bash them as OASE supporters seem to enjoy).

- ignorance about political workingsThe strategic issues and the naive presentation of an old Volkstaat map as their own demonstrates some ignorance on the side of OASE. Not that there is something wrong with drawing up maps as such. But this is something that has been done already in the past with counterproductive results. If they don't come up by themselves, opponents of the Volkstaat idea will take this map (or alternative maps) and show this to people outside the volkstaat area on the map. That's apparently what NP activists did do in the 80s; they went to big farmers and said:"look the CP wants to give your land to the kaffirs". Needless to say that the NP did give ALL the land to the kaffirs with no political representations for Afrikaners whatsoever.
The right approach would be to first convince people of the concept of a Volkstaat (as a better alternative towards the multiracial New South Africa) only after that you can start talking about eventual obstacles and cost. It's kind of buying a new car. Identify the need and benefits first, then look at the cost and later you decide on the colour and model. Many Volkstaters make the mistake of quibbling about the colours or specs, getting caught up in debates concerning cost and misconceptions and they never get as far as debating the concept and the obvious benefits themselves.

So far so good. Possibly good intentions, but many problems due to taking arrogance in their own ignorance.

"And God proclaims as a first principle to the rulers, and above all else, that there is nothing which they should so anxiously guard, or of which they are to be such good guardians, as of the purity of the race. They should observe what elements mingle in their offspring;..." Plato Politeia